Chairman Brander wrote:I do not think we need a list of laws to run the world. Why can we not come here, say our problems and then discuss and allow the councils in charge to decide what is correct?

Because if we do this then the regional government will simply be making laws up as it goes along anyway. It would be something like this, "The AU is slaughtering thousands of members of the church of bigtopia because they don't worship in the Church of Amero. We appeal to the NOTW to intervene." Then there will be a huge heated debate because the government has no guidelines to follow about what it believes is right and wrong. Some people will argue that every person has the right to believe what they want, others will argue for national sovereignty. In the end a decision will have to be made. So I personally believe we might as well settle this here and now. Is this organization merely a peacekeeping body and views the citizenry of the nations who belong to it as resources and cannon fodder or does it actually give a damn about the people of the world?

Danforth stood once again, "Then how about we amend the bill as follows."

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their life.

2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.

"This would prevent governments from running about like the Red Queen saying off with their head arbitrarily. I also changed the male pronoun just in case"

Delegate Danforth rises, "Once again the Confederate State of Missouri proposes that to speed this along, and allow this body to attend to other matters, we appoint a committee to draft a proposed charter which can then be reviewed by the body as a whole and any needed changes made."

"CT agrees. So I suggest that the permanent members of the DC. The country involved with the GS. And an elected member from the others form this committee. With 3/4 agreements to pass it from the committee."

OOC: Well he wants a committee. So just take three of the top holder countries. Which are me and you. And CSM holding the GS character. So then we should make it fair to everyone else and have them elect someone. This person could also be the GA president. To save time. But onto the matter of fact. Any who. This guys will have small debates about each issue. With CSM acting more of a Convention president and giving out proposed drafts. Then we debate and add amendments. And to make sure everything is ok and good. We base it off three votes out of the four to pass a draft.

OOC: I was thinking of something a little smaller. If we go with the above it really isn't much smaller than what we are doing now. The document the committee comes up with will still be open to revision when it is presented. So I was thinking pick someone that seems left of center ( Or as close as we have to that ), someone who seems right of center, and a centrist. I think this would give a good political balance to the committee and a smaller group will get things done quicker.

The AU and CSM seem to be our most right leaning members, I think. Galatians and UCR seem to be our most centrist, once again IMO. Central Texas seems to be the closest thing we have to a left leaning member ( Mind you CT I'm not calling you a Commie or Democrat, perhaps a progressive conservative?)

OOC: Alright......so basically me, the CSM(Only because the AU in my opinion will keep arguing over the declaration. Which will stall completion. So he can argue all he wants against it when the final version is shown). And then UCR.(Because I don't wish for the Galatians to base of his interpretations of the constitution on what it was at first meant to say. Just in a case a court case such as that comes up)